criminals are more protected

onomatopoeia said:
NO! The rights granted by the HRA are nothing to do with the EU. The HRA only changes the court in which remedies can be sought for Human Rights violations, rights which we already had.

We do have a Bill of Rights, incidentally. It is one of the most important laws in our written statute. The colonials copied chunks of it for the first 10 amendments to their constitution (also know as the Bill of Rights).

Do people really not know this stuff? :(
Click to expand...

Not everyone is as clever as you!
The existing 'limited' bill of rights dates back to the 1600's I believe and is grossly outdated ... see News Report about parliament seeing the need for changes in order to protect UK citizens.

I'm sorry but the EU has definitely affected the outcome of cases such as this, before the UK was associated with the EU this man would have been deported. It may not fit in with your views but it is fact.
 
The EU keeps being mentioned which is an irrelevance.

The HRA enshrines in UK law the rights granted in the European Convention on Human Rights. This document was drawn up approximately 60 years ago by mainly British lawyers, working under the direction of Winston Churchill (you may have heard of him). The UK is a signatory to this convention and since it has been so the rights contained within have been granted to UK residents. Until the HRA passed into UK law, cases arising where the actions of the state or our laws violated a right granted in the ECHR could only be considered by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The HRA, being part of our statute and not a treaty obligation, allows these cases to be heard in the senior UK courts as there is relevant statute for them to consider, without having to go straight to Strasbourg - that route remains available but only as a final appeal.

The ECHR is a product of the Council of Europe, which was formed by several European countries in the aftermath of WWII following a speech by (again) Winston Churchill. The Council of Europe is not anything to do with the European Union, although there is considerable overlap in member countries.

If you want to apportion "blame", at least apportion it where it is due. The Council of Europe and Winston Churchill. It was ultimately all his idea.
 
f1charlie said:
Ok, but he had committed other offences too. The guy's a scumbag and should be kicked out of the country.
Click to expand...
Agreed.... just pointing out he never served time for that girls death and the serious nature it entailed.

TBH I vote that people like Arkady ( and others I know ) should decide seeing as it was for them they went to war and in many cases made a sacrifice.....

T
 
Last edited:
onomatopoeia said:
The EU keeps being mentioned which is an irrelevance.

The HRA enshrines in UK law the rights granted in the European Convention on Human Rights. This document was drawn up approximately 60 years ago by mainly British lawyers, working under the direction of Winston Churchill (you may have heard of him). The UK is a signatory to this convention and since it has been so the rights contained within have been granted to UK residents. Until the HRA passed into UK law, cases arising where the actions of the state or our laws violated a right granted in the ECHR could only be considered by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The HRA, being part of our statute and not a treaty obligation, allows these cases to be heard in the senior UK courts as there is relevant statute for them to consider, without having to go straight to Strasbourg - that route remains available but only as a final appeal.

The ECHR is a product of the Council of Europe, which was formed by several European countries in the aftermath of WWII following a speech by (again) Winston Churchill. The Council of Europe is not anything to do with the European Union, although there is considerable overlap in member countries.

If you want to apportion "blame", at least apportion it where it is due. The Council of Europe and Winston Churchill. It was ultimately all his idea.
Click to expand...

The HRA is indeed a spawn of the ECHR but you failed to mention its most significant effect on the judiciary:

That is that any judgement must take into account not only the legislation enshrined in the Act, but also any case law and precedent from Strabourg. Previously the ECHR (convention) did not affect judgements in UK legislature and any recourse was by appeal to the ECHR (court) directly as a higher authority. Following the HRA 1998 (2000) those judgements are directly influenced by the Act and decisions are made accordingly. Ergo it has had a profound impact on UK court rulings.
 
Yv said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12007100


is it just me that is the fact he didn't have that family until after his release strike anyone else as particularly cynical too?
Click to expand...

Thats the thought that crossed my mind too while listening to Jeremy Vine lunch time, so no, Its not just you.

as someone said, one may have been an "accident" (poor choice of words)
but two? no way!
 
DemiLion said:
The HRA is indeed a spawn of the ECHR but you failed to mention its most significant effect on the judiciary:

That is that any judgement must take into account not only the legislation enshrined in the Act, but also any case law and precedent from Strabourg. Previously the ECHR (convention) did not affect judgements in UK legislature and any recourse was by appeal to the ECHR (court) directly as a higher authority. Following the HRA 1998 (2000) those judgements are directly influenced by the Act and decisions are made accordingly. Ergo it has had a profound impact on UK court rulings.
Click to expand...

I agree and understand the mechanism - I maintain it is better that HR cases are in the first instance heard in our senior courts taking account of ECHR decisions, rather than having to go directly to Strasbourg. That wasn't the point I was making though - the post I was replying to stated that the EU was having an effect. It's not the EU or anything to do with the EU.
 
Mark, EU does have an impact. Suppose we said to him to leave, he would take his case up with the European Court of Human Rights. If we pull out of the EU he cant do that!
 
cambsno said:
Mark, EU does have an impact. Suppose we said to him to leave, he would take his case up with the European Court of Human Rights. If we pull out of the EU he cant do that!
Click to expand...

That's (the other) Mark's point, and he is spot on.

The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, of which we are one of the founders, and is a completely separate entity.

If we left the EU it is highly likely that we would still remain a member of the Council.
 
gramps said:
Interesting thought, of course EU law requires that the EU country that the assylum seeker first enters must offer them assylum ... which makes you wonder ... how many have actually got to the UK before having entered another EU country - or are other EU members a bit more selective in slavish observance of EU law than the UK?
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not an EU requirement it predates the EU and is (I think) it was enshrined in the Geneva Convention

:evil: who pays his legal fees :evil:
 
Last edited:
whiteflyer said:
This will be closed just as my thread on the same subject was LINK

My option is that if a foreign national is convicted of a criminal offence then they should be automatically deported , without exception.

I have already written to my MP to voice my disgust at the courts decision, HAVE YOU?
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is the Tourist board should start an advertising campaign along the lines of 'Come to the UK you're above the Law! Rape, Murder, Pillage and get a free ticket home!.
 
TinaC said:
Actually, that is not an EU requirement it predates the EU and is (I think) it was enshrined in the Geneva Convention

:evil: who pays his legal fees :evil:
Click to expand...

You need to pay a better lawyer then! :D

It comes mainly from the adoption of the UNHCR conventions.
 
f1charlie said:
Ok, but he had committed other offences too. The guy's a scumbag and should be kicked out of the country.
Click to expand...
And what about his victims who see him walk free with no punishment? Do you think that's fair? You're effectively saying that foreign people have diplomatic immunity as they just get kicked out. So what constitutes a foreigner? Scottish? Irish? Welsh? French? German? Black? Arab? Jew? A person commits a crime in this country they should be punished in this country. If you don't like the way they are punished then that is another issue entirely.
 
The whole story doesnt sit well with me but I would content just knowing that he is being punished to the full extent of the law. As someone who works with asylum seekers and refugees, I hope this start another Daily Mail hysteria campaign.

whiteflyer said:
This will be closed just as my thread on the same subject was LINK
Click to expand...

And with good reason. I was absolutely disgusted with your thread when I read it last night and good on the mods for closing it. You weren't looking to discuss the dynamics of this story you were just giving yourself an excuse to see if anyone else had the same views are yourself. THIS story should not be about the persons race, THIS story involves the persons crime and legal dynamic.
 
Evolutionist said:
So what you're saying is the Tourist board should start an advertising campaign along the lines of 'Come to the UK you're above the Law! Rape, Murder, Pillage and get a free ticket home!.
Click to expand...

Evolutionist said:
And what about his victims who see him walk free with no punishment? Do you think that's fair? You're effectively saying that foreign people have diplomatic immunity as they just get kicked out. So what constitutes a foreigner? Scottish? Irish? Welsh? French? German? Black? Arab? Jew? A person commits a crime in this country they should be punished in this country. If you don't like the way they are punished then that is another issue entirely.
Click to expand...



I would have thought it was blatantly obvious that we meant we want them deported IMMEDIATELY after they have served their time in prison.

No appeal, no excuse, deported.

what constitutes a foreigner, well as we are taking UK laws and punishment then again blatantly obvious None UK citizens.



and now for the good news
The UK Border Agency (UKBA) will appeal against a ruling preventing the deportation of an asylum-seeker who left a girl dying under a car.

Immigration Minister Damian Green made the announcement hours after the prime minister expressed anger at the case.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's not confuse the issue by using the term 'foreigner', that's not the issue here - there are many honourable, hard-working and honest foreigners working and living here in the UK just as there are many UK nationals living in other lands.
This man is a failed assylum seeker and as such had no business being here in the first place - the lawlessness merely compounds that, giving even greater reason for him to be deported.
 
Evolutionist said:
And what about his victims who see him walk free with no punishment? Do you think that's fair? You're effectively saying that foreign people have diplomatic immunity as they just get kicked out. So what constitutes a foreigner? Scottish? Irish? Welsh? French? German? Black? Arab? Jew? A person commits a crime in this country they should be punished in this country. If you don't like the way they are punished then that is another issue entirely.
Click to expand...

He served four months in jail and that wasn't even for killing the girl as far as I have read. Perhaps if he had a sentence more fitting the crime then there wouldn't have been such a fuss.

However, deportation obviously will be a punishment for him , otherwise he wouldn't be fighting it.
 
He should be exported to Borneo as free food :D with a tag saying -- lots more where this came from
 
Splog said:
He should be exported to Borneo as free food :D with a tag saying -- lots more where this came from
Click to expand...

That would be unfair - he sounds rotten through and through and would give them food poisoning!
 
Didn't think of that ..
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
The whole story doesnt sit well with me but I would content just knowing that he is being punished to the full extent of the law. As someone who works with asylum seekers and refugees, I hope this start another Daily Mail hysteria campaign.



And with good reason. I was absolutely disgusted with your thread when I read it last night and good on the mods for closing it. You weren't looking to discuss the dynamics of this story you were just giving yourself an excuse to see if anyone else had the same views are yourself. THIS story should not be about the persons race, THIS story involves the persons crime and legal dynamic.
Click to expand...



You have absolutely no idea what my views are over a persons race, what I said was that it gives some people a reason to be racist.

I have no idea what sort of circle of friend you have or the people you work with, but I can tell you for certain that there will be people in this country saying that another (insert a racist term) has wriggled out of true punishment again.

By saying it give them a reason does not say that I agree or disagree, it says that for some they will use this as a reason to justify their racist views.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evolutionist said:
A person commits a crime in this country they should be punished in this country. If you don't like the way they are punished then that is another issue entirely.
Click to expand...

That I can live with, but if they were not a British Citizen when they were found guilty, the Government should be able to enforce an immediate deportation to their Country of origin, once their incarceration is complete.

No chance of pleading for political asylum, once they broke the law they lost that option.

Steve
 
What I fail to understand is how such a prolific repeat offender is still walking the streets.

It seems the only crimes where you get a lengthy prison sentence are tax offences, perjury rape and murder.

2 convictions for driving without a licence and insurance says to me he's done it dozens of times but been caught twice.

If there really is nothing that can be done regarding deporting him he should be watched 24/7 and the next time he spits in the street or drops litter he gets 10 years for it.

There should be a similar system to points on a driving licence, you get 3 points per offence once you reach 12 it's Prison.

A string of minor offences affects a lot of people who i'm sure would all like to see the offender imprisoned
 
wack61 said:
There should be a similar system to points on a driving licence, you get 3 points per offence once you reach 12 it's Prison
Click to expand...

There is some appeal in the 3 strikes and your out idea, but there would need to be lots of thought going into a such a scheme.

Now many point for what type of offence
How do you decide on the prison term is it on the first offence or the last one.
How long do points say on your file.

What we don't want is a situation where as a teen somebody gets 11 points for quite bad crimes, then after sorting their life out and living another 30 years as an upstanding citizen, the commit some very very petty offence to get that last 1 point and is then banged away for life.
 
whiteflyer said:
There is some appeal in the 3 strikes and your out idea, but there would need to be lots of thought going into a such a scheme.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they get life, it's just not right that someone can commit a string of minor offences affecting dozens of law abiding citizens lives and only ever get fines which they don't pay or community service which they don't turn up for.

If I commit 4 speeding offences I get an automatic ban of at least 3 months, one the ban has been served the points are still on my licence but the totting up begins again, there must be a way of implementing a similar system with criminal offences.

I'm quite sure if the government announced a 1% tax increase but every penny would be spend on more prisons most people would be in favour.

There's a reason Sheriff Joe Arpaio keeps getting re-elected in Phoenix Arizona

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/arpaio.asp
 
Last edited:
I don't think we need more prison, we just needed it to be much much tougher in there.

The first step I would do if fit every prison with mobile phone signal blockers, no calls in or out.

Also I read recently that the prison in the USA with the lowest repeat offenders had achieves this success with a very cheap and simple scheme PINK. They painted all the walls pink and dress all the inmates in pink too. Not sure if this was a true story, but it would give me a good giggle if we did it here.
 
He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on County and City projests. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
Click to expand...

Now that's the way to deal with the law!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top